"The Subject treated on, in this ensuing Discourse, is of the highest Concernment." — Benjamin Keach (one of the signatories of the 1677/1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith)

"Covenant theology is not peripheral to the reformed identity but it is something that really defines our tradition… To be reformed is to think and live covenantally… This will enrich our understanding of the christian life and church practice." — Ptr. Joseph Mangahas

Concernment

Many may quickly dismiss this topic as unimportant or "just" divisive simply because it has "no impact on their salvation." This may be acceptable to those outside the Reformed Baptist persuasion, but hearing these from those who subscribe to the Baptist Confession is disheartening. Yet, this is contrary to how our forebears regarded it. One of the signatories of the 1677/1689 Baptist confession,1 a 17th-century particular baptist theologian and pastor, Benjamin Keach, lovingly writes this to his congregation,2

To the Congregation at Horsly-down, who were the Auditors of this Sermon, the Author wishes all the Blessings of the Everlasting Covenant, even the sure Mercies of David, Beloved, the Subject treated on, in this ensuing Discourse, is of the highest Concernment.

Keach states that Covenant Theology is of the highest concernment3 or utmost importance. "Covenant Theology," which is the view of God and redemption that interprets the Holy Scriptures by way of covenants is a central doctrine. Because of this, it has been one of the distinctives of the Particular Baptists. Earl Blackburn, who is not a 1689 federalist and a strong critic of that position,4 nevertheless acknowledges that Particular [Reformed] Baptists are distinguished by their adherence to Covenant Theology. He writes,5

The Reformation brought a rediscovery of biblical doctrine and theology, not the least of which was a covenantal understanding of the word of God. Reformed churches have long been distinguished for their adherence to Covenant Theology and, contrary to the thinking of most moderns, so have Baptists until the past eight decades. The Particular Baptists of the 17th century in England and the first Baptist churches in America made Covenant Theology a clear article of distinction in their Confessions of Faith and church constitutions, in which they set forth a magnificent view of the glorious grace of God.6

If Covenant Theology serves to set forth a magnificent view of God's glorious grace for sinners through Jesus Christ, the Mediator of a better covenant (Hebrews 8:6), it is unhistorical and uncharitable to treat it as trivial or insignificant.

James Renihan once lamented that Reformed Baptists today inherited and sort of developed a Covenant Theology that is really paedobaptist.7 Nevertheless, Covenant Theology was the air that our forebears were breathing. Because of this, it is not impossible to find the view that the majority of our Particular Baptist forebears held. And this, the conference claims, is now called 1689 Federalism.8

But this is not to say that this is the only valid view that a subscriber to the 1677/1689 Baptist confession can hold. One of the lectures demonstrates how the framers graciously accommodated the other views. After all, our position does not wholly depend on this historical fact but on the Word of God. The official website of 1689 Federalism9 answers this question: DOES THE 2ND LONDON BAPTIST CONFESSION ONLY PERMIT 1689 FEDERALISM?

'No. 1689 Federalism is a view of covenant theology (distinguished by its belief that the old and new covenants are different, distinct covenants and that only the new covenant is the covenant of grace) that was held by every published particular baptist work in the 17th century. It accounts for the change in language found in the 2nd London Baptist Confession with regards to covenant theology (in comparison to the WCF). However, this new language was written broadly enough to allow a variety of views to equally confess it. The label "1689 Federalism" is not intended to suggest that no other view is permissible amongst confessional baptists.'

Working with the Reformation principle, always being reformed according to the Word of God, the speakers sought to patiently explain the older view of Baptists in the hope of making a clear distinction, preventing further misrepresentation, with an irenic and loving tone. Indeed, this is not a different agenda, not even an attempt to claim the mantle of the reformation, but a desire to bring clarity to this misunderstood position and to appeal to unity despite the diversity.10

Conference

Session 1: "The Common Confessions"

Ptr. Diego Bulatao of Redeemed by Grace Baptist Church

Lecture Notes. Video.

Anyone who listens carefully to this first lecture delivered by Ptr. Diego will sense that the conference is a plea to hear that 1689 federalism is not a novelty and a dangerous view of theology. And that this precious doctrine must be addressed on the foundation of love and charity. Ptr. Diego first defines covenant theology as a framework for understanding Scripture, emphasizing God's covenants with humanity as central to the story of redemption. It was developed during the Protestant Reformation and is foundational to Reformed thinking. He dealt with the historical contexts of the three major confessions (Westminster, Savoy Declaration, and the 1677/1689 Baptist Confession). He also demonstrated the continuity and discontinuity between the confessions: the New Covenant is distinct and only includes the regenerate (1689), and strong continuity between Old and New Covenants; the church is the "new Israel" (Westminster and Savoy).

After noting the differences, Ptr. Diego ends his lecture with a challenge for everyone to seek to build up the church, encourage one another, and reflect the gospel. This first session sets the tone of the conference: "In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas" → "Unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, charity in all things."

Session 2: "What is 1689 Federalism? The Particularities of Baptist Covenant Theology"

Ptr. Joseph Mangahas of Emmaus Reformed Baptist Church – Philippines

Lecture Notes. Video.

During the second session, Ptr. Joseph initially addressed the common argument that equates covenants and promises. Citing Eph 2:2 (covenants of promise) and Heb. 6:6 (covenant enacted on better promises), he asserted that neither bare promises nor bare laws constitute in themselves a covenant. A covenant promised is not a covenant made. A covenant proclaimed beforehand through promise is never established apart from its formal solemnization. In Jeremiah 31, the new covenant was promised. It won't make sense to say that what God will do (make a covenant) is already made (if the promise is already a covenant). The Scripture clearly distinguishes between a covenant as promised and a covenant being formally established. Dr. Sam Waldron confirms this when he writes,11

A covenant is more than a mere promise. It is a sworn promise. It is certified by an oath. It is a promise legally secured by formal oath… What makes a promise into a covenant is the oath. The legally secured, the formally certified, the publicly notarized promise is a covenant. Thus, we read of covenants attended by oaths, witnesses, gifts, sacrifices, and signs of the covenant. All are intended to confirm the public, legal, secured, formal, certified, notarized character of the covenant promise.

Three overarching covenants express what is held in common, more than what divides, among the various forms of Reformed federalism: the Covenant of Redemption, the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace.

The Covenant of Redemption is the eternal covenant or pact made between the Father and the Son, with the participation of the Spirit, the purpose of which is to accomplish the redemption of an elect people, who are promised to the Son as reward (2 Tim. 1:9; Isa. 42:1–7; 50:4–9; Jn. 10:17–18, 27–29; Ps. 2:6–9; Ps. 110:4; Jn. 17:8; Phil. 2:8–11).

The Covenant of Works is the covenant given to Adam wherein the blessing of the eternal and glorified life is promised to him and his posterity as reward for his obedience, while the sanction of death is threatened against him upon disobedience (Rom. 5:12ff; 1 Cor. 15:21–22; Hos. 6:7).

The Covenant of Grace is the covenant whereby God proclaims salvation and eternal life to all men through Christ to be received by faith, while effectively bringing under it the elect who are enabled by the Spirit to believe to receive its blessings (Heb. 8:6; Jer. 31:31ff; Lk. 22:20; Heb. 9:15; 13:20; Gal. 3:13).

Throughout the lecture, Ptr. Joseph expounds the two major distinctives of this framework: (1) The Old Covenant was a covenant of works, the promised blessing of which was the establishment and enjoyment of an earthly, theocratic kingdom in Canaan, that is, Israel, from which the Christ would come, and (2) The New Covenant is substantially distinct from the Old in that it alone is the historical establishment of the Covenant of Grace, from which all the elect throughout history receive the grace of salvation in Christ. The Old Covenant refers to the economy of the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic Covenants. The New Covenant is uniquely the Covenant of Grace. The Old Covenant points to it and serves its purposes (provides contexts for Christ's coming, exposes the impossibility of righteousness apart from Christ, and reveals Christ and His work) as one preparatory economy.

Though the new covenant is the covenant of grace, it never claims that there is no grace in the old covenant, as some of God's people were related to God in the New Covenant, others remained under the Old. He concludes this session by maintaining one of the practical implications of 1689 federalism: the law and gospel distinction. This Particular Baptist view of the covenant more carefully safeguards the fundamental distinction of a covenant based on the law and a covenant based on gospel promise. To say that the old and new covenants have the same substance is to open the new covenant to the curses of the old.

Session 3: "Its Typological Distinctives"

Ptr. Eli Ephraim Caña of Reformed Baptist Church of Malabon

Lecture Notes. Video.

Another important distinctive of 1689 federalism is its view on typology.

Ptr. Eli establishes the point that typology is a God-ordained and apostolic method of biblical interpretation. Therefore, it is imperative for the church to thoroughly acquaint herself with it and faithfully employ it in her reading, teaching, and interpretation of Holy Scripture. If this is the case, understanding typology is indispensable for a biblical Covenant Theology. Sam Renihan writes,12

"A clear understanding of two-level typology is foundational because it invests the Old Testament with the information needed for salvation in all post-fall history. Two-level typology does not divest the Old Covenant of its spiritual and religious significance; rather it invests it with all of its spiritual and religious significance. Once again, the connection of typology to the mystery of Christ is important. Christ in the Old Testament as a mystery is the mode of His revelation, and typology the medium."

In the next 50 minutes, after he laid out the theological assumptions of Biblical Typology — which are (1) The Providence of God, (2) The Unity of Scriptures, and (3) The Witness of the Spirit — he defined, related, and applied typology. It is vital to understand typology as association and correspondence, with heightening (escalation), and termination functioning in two levels (two-tiered typology). Biblical typology, first, is pointing to something other and greater than itself, and second, to have its own initial and provisional meaning in its time of institution. Finally, two applications were set forth: (1) A Greater Appreciation for the Scriptures, especially the NT as the fuller and climactic revelation of God, and (2) A Greater Appreciation for the Present Salvation Blessings we Enjoy in Christ.

Session 4: "Where Do We Stand with 1689? Revisiting the Covenant Thought of the 17th Century Particular Baptists"

Ptr. Xley Miguel of Christ's Heritage Church

Lecture Notes. Video.

In this lecture, Ptr. Xley revisits the historical data concerning the covenantal/federal thought of our forebears from the Pre-Confessional Era, making a substantial distinction between law and gospel (John Calvin, Heinrich Bullinger), to the first published articulations of Baptist Federalism by advancing the substantial distinction between old and new covenants in the 1640s–1644 (Andrew Ritor, John Spilsbury, Christopher Blackwood). During this time, we see the seeds of Two-tiered Typology and the language of the New Covenant being promised and covenanted.

The next era is the federalism of the First Confession of Faith of Particular Baptists in 1644–60, which identified the Old Covenant as the covenant of works. Spilsbury, B. Coxe, Kiffin, Knolys, Patient, Cheare, and Steed remained as the prominent figures contributing to the concept of the subserviency of the Old Covenant as it served the New Covenant, and the promissory nature of the New Covenant in the Old Covenant. Even amid persecution, the next era displayed the emergence of Baptist Federalism (Hutchinson, Delaune), maintaining that the covenant of the Law was not the covenant of eternal life and salvation. The maturity of Baptist Federalism is seen in the Second Confession in 1677 [around the persecution and the Collier controversy] with William Kiffin, William Collins, and Daniel Dyke appointing Nehemiah Coxe to lead the ministerial efforts. In this mature confession, we see its language accommodating not only reflecting 1689 federalism covenant theology (the Old Covenant as covenant of works, and the New Covenant promised and covenanted) but also that of some of the dissenters like Hardcastle (even Purnell) who affirmed that the Jews were under a covenant of grace.

Ptr. Xley closes this session by harking back to his initial question, "Where do we stand with the 1689 framers?" Do we stand with the prevailing (majority) covenantal perspective of the particular baptists which is 1689 federalism? (Ritor, Keach, Coxe, etc.) Or with the minority view of Hardcastle, which is graciously accommodated in 7.3 of our confession? In answering this question, we must not rewrite our particular Baptist history, but listen carefully to their witness, and show charity toward one another's (brothers') perspectives. Here we see the catholicity of the particular baptist to give room for their brothers. We cannot deny this historical fact, though others have tried, yet it has been written by God's providence. Now, can we humbly examine this perspective in light of the Scriptures?

For the Question and Answer, see the video here.

On a final note, churches can have diverse strengths, emphases, and areas of focus without departing from the simple gospel message. Indeed, "How good and pleasant it is when brethren dwell together in unity" (Psalm 133:1).

Finally, we can learn much from the history of Reformed Baptists. Hercules Collins, one of the signatories of the 1677/1689 confession, adapted the Heidelberg Catechism in his Orthodox Catechism. He published this catechism to "identify himself and his fellow Particular Baptists as a part of the Reformed community throughout Europe."13 In the preface to this catechism, he writes,14

albeit there are some differences between many Godly Divines and us in Church-Constitution, yet inasmuch as those things are not the Essence of Christianity, but that we do agree in the fundamental Doctrine thereof, there is sufficient ground to lay aside all bitterness and prejudice, and labor to maintain a spirit of Love each to other, knowing we shall never see all alike here.

May the Triune God be praised!

Footnotes

  1. See here for the list of the signatories. ↩

  2. Keach, Benjamin. The Everlasting Covenant. London: Printed for H. Barnard, 1693. ↩

  3. Of paramount importance. ↩

  4. He wrote the book "It Pleased the Lord to Make a Covenant of Grace" (2023) in response to 1689 Federalism. See a response from 1689 Federalism here. Ptr. Joseph Mangahas also clarified the most common caricatures here: Common Misconceptions (or Misrepresentations) about 1689 Federalism. ↩

  5. Blackburn, Earl. "Covenant Theology" in Barcellos, Richard C, et al. Going beyond the Five Points: Pursuing a More Comprehensive Reformation. San Bernardino, CA: Createspace Independent Publishing Platform, 2015. p. 131. ↩

  6. Blackburn (2015), 131. ↩

  7. James Renihan, Baptist Confessionalism. ↩

  8. YouTube: 1689 Federalism: An Introduction. ↩

  9. 1689 Federalism: Baptist Covenant Theology Cheat Sheet. ↩

  10. Joseph Mangahas on a social media post last Feb 22, 2026. ↩

  11. Waldron, Samuel E. A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. New York: Evangelical Press, 2005. ↩

  12. Renihan, Samuel. The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom. Cape Coral, Florida: Founders Press, 2019. ↩

  13. Weaver, Jr., G. Stephen. Orthodox, Puritan, Baptist: Hercules Collins (1647–1702) and Particular Baptist Identity in Early Modern England. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. p. 185. ↩

  14. Ibid., 185. ↩